1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows, and thus, it is acceptable as it is by the main sentence of Article 420

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance, the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance is justifiable, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds for appeal by the Defendants). 2. Additional and height portion

A. Between the 3th 15th 16th e and 16th 16th e part of the judgment of the first instance, the part added “the Defendant asserted that interest rates claimed by the Plaintiff go against the Interest Limitation Act, and thus, the Interest Limitation Act was repealed and did not exist on September 2001 when the loan transaction agreement of this case was concluded, and the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act enacted on June 30, 2007 was 30% per annum until the amendment of the above Act on July 15, 2014. The amended Act as 25th eth eth eth son was applied from the first contract concluded or renewed after the enforcement of the above Act or the Enforcement Decree, and thus, it does not apply to this case. Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.”

B. From the second second sentence of the judgment of the first instance to the third one, “from April 6, 2017, which is the day following the service date,” the part of the first instance judgment, i.e., “from April 6, 2017,” and “Defendant B, as requested by the Plaintiff after the payment date, served the original copy of each of the instant payment order as requested by the Plaintiff, shall be from November 14, 2016; and Defendant A from November 20, 2016 to the above.

B. Paragraph 2 is same as the father-child part.

"Ero-friendly".

2) Each text of the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

Defendant B received the original of the instant payment order on November 13, 2016, but Defendant A received the original of the instant payment order on November 19, 2016 without being served with the original of the instant payment order, and Defendant B submitted a written objection against the payment order on November 25, 2016.

The Defendants are both balls.